Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Velodude]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc3059l.jpg

Really?
Because here is just one recent example where you appear quite sure of yourself.


Or were you just making things up?

MarkvW attorney-at-law

 

[MarkvW]

i can't recall ever addressing mark's posts but his latest concerns about the statute of limitation seem misplaced at best misinformed...which is surprising considering the amount of time he spent in the thread

firstly, and it was discussed to a triple death on the forums, the most recent alleged witness intimidation of Hamilton would automatically extend the sol...

secondly, again it was killed over and over, there were enough references to the rico type charges which carry an almost limitless set of sol rules all together

thirdly, texas raced as far back as 2010 and the allegations of international drug trafficking involving him and his teammates (popovyc for ex.) are as fresh as a morning mist.

there were other reasons for the sol extension...

the very fact that we know the investigation hasn't been stopped and yet mark has chosen a remote/isolated/unrepresentative example tells me a lot about his position and motivation or perhaps ignorance.

than i agree with the doc

You should have read the first post--this is not about RICO. It is a discussion of the SOL as applied to the FCPA.

The automatic Tyler extension argument is nonsensical. Show me one instance where such an extension of the SOL ever happened! You cannot do so!

International drug dealing is not what the FCPA is about. I wasn't discussing that.

This discussion was focused on the FCPA, and the possible SOL problems involved with THAT statute.

 

[python]

what you were attempting to deflect the discussion to is obvious, mark.

your game of obfuscating the facts surrounding the complex of the issues (ANY of which can extend the sol and in fact did not stop the investigation of texas) tell me all i need to know about your holy hollowness


you by selectively pointing to some arbitrary dates that would supposedly play a role and which apparently failed to play any role, b/c the investigation has never been stopped - a fact - exposes your very internals, fanny boy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What did I make up in the post you quote? Let's turn your lazer like focus back on topic. But then, what is the topic?

And where did you say you made it up? I asked you a question.

P.S. The post you quote is a pretty fair rough approximation of the charging dynamic. Run it by some lawyers and see what they have to add!

You're the one who likes to bring in the law -yet now finally, you admit you are not a lawyer.

How would you know if it is "a pretty fair rough approximation"?
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What did I make up in the post you quote? Let's turn your lazer like focus back on topic. But then, what is the topic?

And where did you say you made it up? I asked you a question.

P.S. The post you quote is a pretty fair rough approximation of the charging dynamic. Run it by some lawyers and see what they have to add!

You're the one who likes to bring in the law -yet now finally, you admit you are not a lawyer.

How would you know if it is "a pretty fair rough approximation"?
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

 

[MarkvW]

MarkvW attorney-at-law

And where did you say you made it up? I asked you a question.


You're the one who likes to bring in the law -yet now finally, you admit you are not a lawyer.

How would you know if it is "a pretty fair rough approximation"?
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

I never said I made it up, so I can't tell you where I said I made it up. Please tell me where "finally admit I'm not a lawyer." I must have missed that episode.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never said I made it up, so I can't tell you where I said I made it up. Please tell me where "finally admit I'm not a lawyer." I must have missed that episode.

That appeared to be what you are insinuating when you wrote this:

Have I ever claimed to be a lawyer? You've got to show me the link because I don't think I have. Are you, to quote yourself, "making stuff up?"

SOL is for the indictment.

So, to clear it up once and for all - I will repeat the question that you ignored in the quoted post:
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

 

[MarkvW]

what you were attempting to deflect the discussion to is obvious, mark.

your game of obfuscating the facts surrounding the complex of the issues (ANY of which can extend the sol and in fact did not stop the investigation of texas) tell me all i need to know about your holy hollowness


you by selectively pointing to some arbitrary dates that would supposedly play a role and which apparently failed to play any role, b/c the investigation has never been stopped - a fact - exposes your very internals, fanny boy.

What discussion was I deflecting? A poster brought up the FCPA and I thought it was interesting. The SOL issues really are interesting. There is a real split of opinion in the courts about the three year suspension of the SOL.

And sorry, but your rendition of the SOL exceptions is (a) not the law; and (b) really dumb.

 

[thehog]

I never said I made it up, so I can't tell you where I said I made it up. Please tell me where "finally admit I'm not a lawyer." I must have missed that episode.

That much is true. I'd say this mystifying subplot has come to a deadend.

Funny guy.

 

[python]

I never said I made it up, so I can't tell you where I said I made it up. Please tell me where "finally admit I'm not a lawyer." I must have missed that episode.

i could personally care less if you are a lawyer, not a lawyer or for ffs a minister of justice of the universe

as was conclusively pointed out by me in the 2 posts above, you are not convincing (and yet confusing and factually wrong ) with respect to the statue of limitation of the investigation.

quit 'me' and re-enter the texas fraud , will you, fanny boy

 

[Neworld]

Really?
Because here is just one recent example where you appear quite sure of yourself.


Or were you just making things up?

Too funny Dr. M.

MvW is not a lawyer, he/she is a paralegal that always wanted to be a lawyer for Lance but wasn't invited 'inside the circle of trust'.

MarkvW, you sure are trying hard to sound like a lawyer, what is your profession then?

NW

 

[MarkvW]

That appeared to be what you are insinuating when you wrote this:

So, to clear it up once and for all - I will repeat the question that you ignored in the quoted post:
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

I've read lots of legal stuff. Those cases that I listed at the beginning of this discussion? I read them! They taught me stuff about the FCPA that I shared with you. I've also talked about legal stuff with other people (some of whom are learned in the law)! That's the relevant experience, I guess.

But hey! You could just buy Python's reasoning and blithely assume that the feds have no SOL problems in charging the old stuff.

Please forgive me for not submitting to your obsessive inquiry, but once when I tried to explain to you that an incriminating document found in a garbage dump has less evidentiary value than the same document found in Lance's house, you argued that it did not--that "evidence is evidence." I've just given you some evidence of my legal experience. Why should I have to give more? After all, evidence is evidence, isn't it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've read lots of legal stuff. Those cases that I listed at the beginning of this discussion? I read them! They taught me stuff about the FCPA that I shared with you. I've also talked about legal stuff with other people (some of whom are learned in the law)! That's the relevant experience, I guess.

But hey! You could just buy Python's reasoning and blithely assume that the feds have no SOL problems in charging the old stuff.

Please forgive me for not submitting to your obsessive inquiry, but once when I tried to explain to you that an incriminating document found in a garbage dump has less evidentiary value than the same document found in Lance's house, you argued that it did not--that "evidence is evidence." I've just given you some evidence of my legal experience. Why should I have to give more? After all, evidence is evidence, isn't it?

Because you haven't provided any..... - now it is I have read legal papers. What does that have to do with legal experience?
We will try this one last time:
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

(You could just answer "none")

 

[MarkvW]

Too funny Dr. M.

MvW is not a lawyer, he/she is a paralegal that always wanted to be a lawyer for Lance but wasn't invited 'inside the circle of trust'.

MarkvW, you sure are trying hard to sound like a lawyer, what is your profession then?

NW

I wanted to talk about the FCPA. It's interesting. It applies to US people who commit bribery overseas. It is tough. Congressman Jefferson got 19 years for violating it. It could arguably apply to Armstrong's alleged bribe of the UCI following the TdS. But it has a SOL of five years (perhaps extendable by 3 more years).

It hurts when you say that I always wanted to be a lawyer for Lance.

 

[MarkvW]

Because you haven't provided any..... - now it is I have read legal papers. What does that have to do with legal experience?
We will try this one last time:
What is your relevant legal experience to make that claim?

(You could just answer "none")

Reading legal papers and talking to people learned in the law is not legal experience? Are you kidding me? What do you think happens in law school (or prison, for that matter)?
Of course it's legal experience.

But enough about me!
What do you do?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Reading legal papers and talking to people learned in the law is not legal experience? Are you kidding me? What do you think happens in law school (or prison, for that matter)?
Of course it's legal experience.

But enough about me!
What do you do?

I am not the one who invokes legal terminology in this thread at every opportunity. I just wanted to know were you bluffing.


As for me - well, apparently if reading things and talking to people is 'experience' then I am experienced in law too - who knows, maybe we didn't go to the same law school.

 

[MarkvW]

i could personally care less if you are a lawyer, not a lawyer or for ffs a minister of justice of the universe

as was conclusively pointed out by me in the 2 posts above, you are not convincing (and yet confusing and factually wrong ) with respect to the statue of limitation of the investigation.

quit 'me' and re-enter the texas fraud , will you, fanny boy

That last sentence doesn't make any sense.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I've read lots of legal stuff. Those cases that I listed at the beginning of this discussion? I read them! They taught me stuff about the FCPA that I shared with you. I've also talked about legal stuff with other people (some of whom are learned in the law)! That's the relevant experience, I guess.

But hey! You could just buy Python's reasoning and blithely assume that the feds have no SOL problems in charging the old stuff.

Please forgive me for not submitting to your obsessive inquiry, but once when I tried to explain to you that an incriminating document found in a garbage dump has less evidentiary value than the same document found in Lance's house, you argued that it did not--that "evidence is evidence." I've just given you some evidence of my legal experience. Why should I have to give more? After all, evidence is evidence, isn't it?

Under the FCPA, there is a provision for extending the Statute of Limitations where evidence is in the possession of a foreign government, a request for that evidence has been made to the foreign government and the court in the US has be so notified. In-as-much-as the Grand JUry investigation is under seal, it is quite possible that such a request has been made considering that a formal request for evidence, not just Armstrong's ****, has reportedly been made.

As to garbage dump evidence, your generalized statement is bull dung. Evidence found in a garbage dump or in the garbage at the defendant's curb is potentially every bit as probative as if that same evidence was found in the defendant's home. There are quite a few prisoners in state and federal prison who have learn what you apparently haven't and likely never will.

So what do you do for a living? Are you the night janitor at a white shoe law firm or are you emptying the slop at a small firm in West Texas? Any chance you contacted Judge Learned Hand with a medium?

 

[python]

<snip> You could just buy Python's reasoning and blithely assume that the feds have no SOL problems in charging the old stuff. <snip>

once again, you blithely assumed, in the face of at least 3 hard facts given above, that the feds have a problem with the statute of limitation.

to remind you some simple facts. your own postulates about the 2005 armstrong $1000,000 'contribution' to the uci being somehow limiting (sol/time-limited) to the investigation fails in the face of the elementary facts as we know them...

it is 2011 today, almost 2012 and the facts are..

(i) if the 5-year sol you referred to had any effect, we'd hear of the investigation STOP/reverse/postponement etc. NONE has been reported.

(ii) there were at least 3 different reasons (discussed very extensively here) as to why the investigation may have no problems with the statute of limitation.

you, mark, utterly failed to respond to a single one.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Reading legal papers and talking to people learned in the law is not legal experience? Are you kidding me? What do you think happens in law school (or prison, for that matter)?
Of course it's legal experience.

But enough about me!
What do you do?

There's legal experience and then there's legal experience. If you were reading law as a student at an ABA accredited law school, you would likely have the skills to understand what you are reading. You would also be tested in class on the materials via the Socratic method and examinations. Just, "Reading legal papers and talking to people learned in the law," of itself is meaningless. I think you are a poseur.

 

[Polish]

I just hope the FEDs do not use expired SOLs as an excuse not to launch charges.
Sure, it is a way to save face. Avoid backlash.
But it would deny Lance the opportunity to win.
Be like scheduling a Tough Mountain stage and then cancelling.
Boo.
It would really suck. Bring on those charges!

 

[MarkvW]

Under the FCPA, there is a provision for extending the Statute of Limitations where evidence is in the possession of a foreign government, a request for that evidence has been made to the foreign government and the court in the US has be so notified. In-as-much-as the Grand JUry investigation is under seal, it is quite possible that such a request has been made considering that a formal request for evidence, not just Armstrong's ****, has reportedly been made.

As to garbage dump evidence, your generalized statement is bull dung. Evidence found in a garbage dump or in the garbage at the defendant's curb is potentially every bit as probative as if that same evidence was found in the defendant's home. There are quite a few prisoners in state and federal prison who have learn what you apparently haven't and likely never will.

So what do you do for a living? Are you the night janitor at a white shoe law firm or are you emptying the slop at a small firm in West Texas? Any chance you contacted Judge Learned Hand with a medium?

I would definitely think that such a request has been made. The extension doesn't work for just FCPA cases, it works for everything. In the 9th Circuit, the exception is construed really broadly. But with respect to the UCI bribery FCPA, I have a hard time seeing how it could be made to work. A bribe (the 2002 payment) contemporaneous with the TdS would surely be killed by the SOL, as charges would have had to be filed no later than 2009. The 2005 payment would be super-hard to link to a 2001event. Doesn't look like the bribe could ever be proven (unless there is a UCI snitch).

My point to Maserati, awhile ago, was that evidence cannot be separated from its context. A pile of documents found in a junkyard would support a whole pile of inferences that the same pile of documents found in a house safe would not.

Since you were kind enough to talk about the FCPA, I can tell you that I wanted to be a garbage man when I was a kid and that Gerald Gunther's biography of Hand is VERY good.

 

[Neworld]

I wanted to talk about the FCPA. It's interesting. It applies to US people who commit bribery overseas. It is tough. Congressman Jefferson got 19 years for violating it. It could arguably apply to Armstrong's alleged bribe of the UCI following the TdS. But it has a SOL of five years (perhaps extendable by 3 more years).

It hurts when you say that I always wanted to be a lawyer for Lance.

I understand, you just wanted to 'talk', feel included in some legal discussions...I get it. I work with individuals like you. Let me help, rather than chirping off with every legal word in your lexicon in hopes of being heard, try just asking questions, and the richness of those questions will show others that you belong. Thereafter, love, unity and happiness will consume us all.

"I'd rather know all the questions, than all the answers" (Aryeh Frimer)

NW

 

[Neworld]

]
It would really suck. Bring on those charges!

Oh Polish, I thought you didn't get my last post, or that you decided to stop talking about meaningless topics in the doping section of a bike website?

Hey, need that address of yours so I can send that overhead sign to you. Don't be bashful...its just a meaningless sign about Lance, doping and the Bike store where you work or supposedly own.

We all know you sit around waiting to post and tally your postings...don't forget to respond with something tangential like J. Depp from Alice in Wonderland. Your posts are so meaningful.

NW

 

[Polish]

Oh Polish, I thought you didn't get my last post, or that you decided to stop talking about meaningless topics in the doping section of a bike website?

Hey, need that address of yours so I can send that overhead sign to you. Don't be bashful...its just a meaningless sign about Lance, doping and the Bike store where you work or supposedly own.

We all know you sit around waiting to post and tally your postings...don't forget to respond with something tangential like J. Depp from Alice in Wonderland. Your posts are so meaningful.

NW

I fond it rather creepy that you are stalking me.
Wanting to know my address yikes. REPORTED.

Anyway, if charges do not get launched - I will have to admit I was wrong.
It was NOT a Witch Hunt.

It would turn out to be a Wild Goose Chase.